Gwion wrote:The premise put forward that anyone to the left is a "gun grabber maximus" is tired and in accurate; in so far as the powers to the right are also gun grabbers. Communist regimes may have a history of suppressing the common ownership of firearms but so too have every right wing totalitarian regime in history. Controlling access to weapons for the populace is neither new nor restricted to "one side" of politics.
So which one is it?? If the leftist gun grabbing is inaccurate then in the same breath you say (write) of the history of 'suppressing' ownership of guns....but every right wing totalitarian regime?? Firstly are all right-wing governments also 'totalitarian regimes'? A few examples of such regimes, and how they disarmed their people? Please elucidate this point for me.....I know which particular one you refer to, but I'd like you to actually put it in your post. You will find that the old “the people were disarmed” is a fantasy that is unfortunately used and perpetuated by both sides including the progunners..... because it suits the purpose. (It was a specific element of the people who were disarmed)
Gwion wrote:In fact, it is my belief that the old dichotomy of "left v right" is also tired and tiresome, being so outmoded as to be practically irrelevant in today's world, except for those who wish to promulgate it in order support their own agenda. In reality, most people today combine conservatism and liberalism (or progressiveness and regressiveness) in a rather fluid manner that allows them to best negotiate the modern world. This vast majority is neither left, nor right, nor truly center, as they may combine rather extreme ethics, policies and theories from both "sides" of political thought. Even those at either end of the scale, by shear weight of the fact that they live in the modern world, will live their lives with influences from "both sides" seamlessly woven into their personal philosophies.
Yes, I agree, the left / right 'paradigm' in todays setting as far as the media (and the entities themselves) portray it is rather bastardised and pointless as the outcome of their policies, being the only measure of their actions, achieve the same thing - screwing us. So yes, it is for all intents and purposes a FALSE dichotomy, but it is the way to generalise their political leanings....
Malcolm Turnbull, is well known to be a heck of a great deal more (lower-case L) liberal than Abbott. This can not be refuted.
What should be of concern to everyone, is that climate action had stalled absolutely with Abbott, and to progress the leftist agenda, yes, the LEFTIST agenda of progressing the global goals of restricting human activity through the TROJAN HORSE OF CLIMATE ACTION.....will only proceed with a leader other than Abbott, preferably with a BILDERBERGER with global Banking associations.
So the ousting of the Mad Abbott, was not about the upcoming By-election, neither the “30 successive news poll losses” nor the potential Fed election this or next year...
Its about Paris;
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 will be held in Paris, France in 2015.[1] The international climate conference will be held at the Le Bourget site from November 30 to December 11, 2015.[2] This will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties (CMP 11) to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[3] The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Leadership of the negotiations is yet to be determined......
…....the objective of the 2015 conference is to achieve, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.So those who control, those who control, would NEVER allow a leader who doesn't subscribe to the church of climatology, to allow a dissent or non-supporting vote in Paris.
After December we can (now) look forward to a renewed trajectory toward a new Carbon Tax/ETS, however they package it along with countless law / regs to alter our lifestyles, forcing reductions in energy consumption, small homes, further densification of populations, more people off the land into the cities, more redistribution of wealth, more immigration from less developed to developed nations, further infiltration of Agenda21 (google it) policies into our lifestyles from the local planning laws and local-laws up....etc.
Yay for democracy